CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. 344 U.S. 4
NO. 126. CERTIFICATE DISMISSED OCTOBER 20, 1952.
A CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFYING TO THIS COURT, UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(3), QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF A
REGULATION OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD IS DISMISSED ON THE AUTHORITY
OF CASES CITED IN THE OPINION; AND AN APPLICATION OF THE BOARD FOR AN
ORDER REQUIRING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD, THUS
BRINGING UP "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY" FOR DECISION, IS
DENIED. PP. 4-5.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL. V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL.
CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A REGULATION OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
UNLESS AND UNTIL PLAINTIFFS WERE AFFORDED "A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WITH RESPECT THERETO." SEE 98 F. SUPP. 660. ON APPEAL TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT,
THREE JUDGES WERE UNABLE TO AGREE ON A DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AND
CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION. THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD APPLIED TO THIS COURT UNDER
RULE 37(2) OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COURT
OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD. CERTIFICATE DISMISSED AND
ORDER DENIED, PP. 4-5.
PER CURIAM.
THE CERTIFICATE IS DISMISSED. LABOR BOARD V. WHITE SWAN CO., 313
U.S. 23 (1941); LOWDEN V. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., 298
U.S. 160 (1936); WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367 (1931); UNITED STATES
V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 168 U.S. 505 (1897).
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HAS APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD. TO GRANT
SUCH AN APPLICATION WOULD BRING "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY"
BEFORE THE COURT FOR DECISION. 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(3).
SINCE THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE DISMISSED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO BRING UP "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY" FOR REVIEW. SEE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON CO. V. ARCTIC IRON
CO., 248 U.S. 178 (1918). PERHAPS THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY NOW WISH TO
HEAR THIS CASE EN BANC TO RESOLVE THE DEADLOCK INDICATED IN THE
CERTIFICATE AND GIVE FULL REVIEW TO THE ENTIRE CASE. THIS COURT DOES
NOT NORMALLY REVIEW ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE; AND THE COURT DOES NOT DESIRE TO TAKE ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME
WHICH MIGHT FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH REVIEW IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.
FOR THESE REASONS THE BOARD'S APPLICATION IS DENIED.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS.